" an inveterate empiricist". 
Wow, I don't think Trysts has ever called me THAT before.
Another cheater thread
Sort:
Jan 30, 2015
0
#43
kaynight wrote:
hapless: please translate your " spineless" post.
I see what you did there.
I said inveterate, not invertebrate.
Jan 30, 2015
0
#44
hapless_fool wrote:
BTW, to an inveterate empiricist, can anyone produce evidence that low and mid-rated players are not prone to cheating? I see that tossed around, but I see no reason for it to be true.
If low and mid-rated players are prone to cheating wouldn't they not be low and mid-rated?
Low and mid-rated players, probably with a few exceptions, can't accurately evaluate a position to tell they might be losing (there are exclusions for obvious material deficits) so how can they accurately tell when to turn on an egine to do the cheating? So, if they can't really gauge that and were inclined to cheat, wouldn't they be looking more often and be getting in better positions? Thus winning more games and increasing ratings?
It might be plausible that some people would only cheat to get an advantage (most likely material) and then stop and play on from there. But I still would think that such a player wouldn't be able to stop from looking at an engine again when the position started getting questionable, after they blunder again. Do that enough and their rating will eventually increase and with enough games like that, they will likely get caught.
I just don't think the careful cheater is that prominent and probably not very prominent at lower ratings.
Jan 30, 2015
0
#45
I raised a spock like eyebrow after..
"I'm such a crap player than I don't think anyone has to resort to cheating to beat me."
then I read..
."I was beating a much higher rated player than I, only to lose in the waning several moves of a lengthy game."
and I thought to myself...Is this a chapter from the book, "How to Prove your Point by Undermining your own Agrument" ?
The ones that talk about cheaters are always those that cheat.
Biogenes wrote:
The ones that talk about cheaters are always those that cheat.
LEarn that in police detective school, did ya?
No, it is pure logic.
Those that care about their rating, care about cheating because they want to win the games they play. Those that care about their rating will more easily resort to doping than those who do not. It is all part of the same mindset.
Biogenes wrote:
No, it is pure logic.
Those that care about their rating, care about cheating because they want to win the games they play. Those that care about their rating will more easily resort to doping than those who do not. It is all part of the same mindset.
I agree with this, but this statement has on real connection to 'The ones that talk about cheaters are always those that cheat.'.
no?..
Jan 31, 2015
0
#51
hapless_fool wrote:
How do you report a suspected cheater? I've tried to find out on the support section and can't find the imformation there. I send an email to a staff member and it promptly bounced.
I don't see cheaters lurking behind trees and bushes, in fact this is the first time I've been convinced a guy is cheating.
On top of Batgirl's solution in post #7, you can also message staff member 'monitor' directly.
These two detection channels are independant from one another so I recommend using both for better results.
Jan 31, 2015
0
#52
Biogenes wrote:
The ones that talk about cheaters are always those that cheat.
Account created : Jan, 24 2015
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
Yes buddy, its Canadian French. Grammar school wasn't fun. It was Cotex, or Cooties
"I'm not your buddy, guy!" LOL sorry, but using buddy and Canada in the same sentence made me flash back to South Park... 
kaynight wrote:
Cheaters do lurk behind trees and bushes. Oh! maybe that's cheetahs.
What animal don't you want to play cards with?
hicetnunc wrote:
Biogenes wrote:
The ones that talk about cheaters are always those that cheat.
Account created : Jan, 24 2015
Ha!
hapless_fool wrote:
BTW, to an inveterate empiricist, can anyone produce evidence that low and mid-rated players are not prone to cheating? I see that tossed around, but I see no reason for it to be true.
Because really, what would be the point? So you can say "YIPPEEE!!! I'm now rated 899 in Live Chess!"??? Unless you are really, really sad, or want to simply antagonize other players (or both), what would that cheater gain, besides a lonely self-congratulations on an un-earned win?
That, I believe, is why people often say not to worry about cheaters at the lower rankings.
i think its pretty obvious that the OP is a cheater
reported
KirbyCake wrote:
i think its pretty obvious that the OP is a cheater
reported
trollol
who is the OP ??
BTW, to an inveterate empiricist, can anyone produce evidence that low and mid-rated players are not prone to cheating? I see that tossed around, but I see no reason for it to be true.
People also claim the site is flooded with cheats, but no proof.
I find cheat claims are generally just feelings with no proof.